Hey CodeMeta'ers :0 Anyone want to review my PR for the SCWG document about the codemeta crosswalk; see force11/force11-scwg#125
@cboettig@danielskatz@ashleysa (the latter two may not be in Gitter): we should try to resolve the authorship question
@kyleniemeyer@danielkatz@ashleysa indeed. open to ideas but here's one proposal for you: If no one wants to take on a leadership role in wrangling and seeing it out the door; I'm happy to cover that and play first-author. If someone (cough Kyle) wants to do that I'd love to make them first author, maybe Ashley as second, and propose I go at the end ("senior author"). We order the others by some arbitrary metric, and we say authorship order was determined by "the consensus of the workshop" if we comment on it at all. Does this sound fair?
Daniel S. Katz
As I said at the meeting, I think we either should list authors based on contribution (perhaps determined via the general consensus of the participants), or we should alphabetize (other than the lead author), as people who see a citation to the document will assume that we are doing one of these: If the order is alphabetic, it will be assumed that we used alphabetic order, and if the order is anything else, it will be assumed that we ordered according to contribution. (I can't believe I'm writing this badly while listening to a talk on bad writing)
Since @cboettig suggested it (and @danielskatz has done the lion’s share of the work on the software citation principles doc), I can take the helm on this one
(was trying to fit as many cliches in there as I could)
I agree with Dan's assessment of ordering -- first author, then alphabetical. Otherwise, it should go by order of contribution, and that is much harder to determine, especially as several people have bene working off and on on this for several years.
Daniel S. Katz
That's another good point - this shouldn't just be based on contributions to the paper but really to the whole ball of wax (trying to follow Kyle's example of the use of cliches)
Ashley E. Sands
The final potential authorship is a hybrid - the first set of authors are entered by order of contribution (or order of 'needing' authorship order?) and then the second set is alphabetical. This is actually common in astronomy. Perhaps too complicated in this context. The first set could be folks who 'need' earlier authorship and who actually step-up to ensure the writing itself is completed. Again, that's an option but may be too complicated - though it does provide incentive to not let the paper itself linger now that the enthusiasm of the weekend is over ;)
@ashleysa that is certainly an interesting idea, but that hierarchy might not be recognizable by most (or supported by the journal!). Looks like PeerJ just has a standard flat list of authors, so not sure if that approach would be compatible.
I also agree that beyond whoever takes the lead being first author (either @cboettig or me, I guess), trying to order based on contribution (or need) becomes tricky and perhaps not fair/equitable. For my own case, other than the coveted lead author position, I don’t think position will matter too much—it’s a paper, and potentially one with good impact.
Ashley E. Sands
It's still just a flat list -- the two sets are smushed together like one normal author list -- you determine the order like any other article. It would depend on your community if you knew how to "read" the ordering -- but sounds like most communities here it doesn't matter. But again, don't want to force a crazy idea on anyone.